From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Is it time to remove INTERNAL_FIELD? Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 18:34:50 +0300 Message-ID: <838udi26zp.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87lhhjuq26.fsf@gmail.com> <87fv7r3rbh.fsf@gmail.com> <83iocn0x3x.fsf@gnu.org> <87sibr2b10.fsf@gmail.com> <87618maoh1.fsf@yahoo.fr> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1429803360 23863 80.91.229.3 (23 Apr 2015 15:36:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 15:36:00 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, ohwoeowho@gmail.com, monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA To: Nicolas Richard Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Apr 23 17:35:53 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YlJAO-0000FG-Q3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 17:35:52 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40880 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YlJAO-00043I-6B for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 11:35:52 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46746) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YlJ9w-00042e-U9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 11:35:25 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YlJ9s-0003n3-5v for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 11:35:24 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il ([80.179.55.166]:51832) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YlJ9r-0003my-UR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 11:35:20 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NN900H00N7X1500@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 18:34:48 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NN900H27NA00J10@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 18:34:48 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: <87618maoh1.fsf@yahoo.fr> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 X-Received-From: 80.179.55.166 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:185819 Archived-At: > From: Nicolas Richard > Cc: Eli Zaretskii , monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 16:50:02 +0200 > > Oleh Krehel writes: > > It's not obvious how simple or intricate INTERNAL_FIELD is or what it > > does. At the first glance, looks like C++ member function call. > > >From the perspective of someone who never touches C source, I think > INTERNAL_FIELD spelled out is more clear on the intent than an > underscore. I agree. But if this underscore always hides inside the likes of BVAR and KVAR, and is never explicitly seen anywhere else, then we don't really need INTERNAL_FIELD, do we?